Ok. Now that a Federal district court has ruled that Maryland's requirement that a person show very good reason to carry a handgun in order to get a CCW license has been ruled unconstitutional does that mean that for now everyone in Maryland who applies for a CCW license and meets all other requirements must be given a license? Or has that been some how put on hold until the state tries to appeal the decision?
Maryland question. Shall issue CCW right now?
- Thread starter JellyJar
- Start date
- Status
AlexanderA
Member
No. The state will appeal, and things will stay as they are while the appeal is pending. Even then, assuming a favorable outcome, it would be a while before the new procedures are in place.
swinokur
Member
mgkdrgn
Member
You've got at least another 10 years worth of appeals until it gets to the supreemes and is finally settled.
And you base this on what?
Just a short time ago, the internet experts were saying that we were wasting our time with this lawsuit at all. Now that it's come down in our favor we have to hear speculation like this?
I'm curious, what empirical basis you are using for this assertion.
I swear, Maryland could be Constitutional carry with no permits and there'd still be people sending us some negative waves.
mgkdrgn
Member
Having live in MD (Columbia) for 28 years. The State will appeal this thing to it's last breath and taxpayer dollar.
I finally "escaped" to SC 5 years ago.
bushmaster1313
Member
Statute was declared unconstitutional. Was there a request for an injunction
bushmaster1313
Member
Judge Legg's Order granting the Plaintiff's (Gura's) Motion for Summary Judgment:
http://ia700501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.53.0.pdf
The Motion that was granted:
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.21.0.pdf
The effect of Gura winning summary judgment is unclear, and the State has moved for clarification as to what the granting of summary judgment against them means:
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.0.pdf
This is the clarification that the State is seeking (i.e., denial of injunctive relief):
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.1.pdf
I am not quite sure what all this means, but I think that as things now stand, the original plaintiff could go back to the issuing authority and renew or resubmit a permit application. If denied again, the plaintiff could then file another action to force the authority to issue the permit,and as long as the original decision has not been stayed or overturned, this time the authority could not say they were denying based on the unconstitutional requirement to show need.
Note, in the Original and Amended Complaints Gura sought attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
http://ia700501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.53.0.pdf
The Motion that was granted:
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.21.0.pdf
The effect of Gura winning summary judgment is unclear, and the State has moved for clarification as to what the granting of summary judgment against them means:
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.0.pdf
This is the clarification that the State is seeking (i.e., denial of injunctive relief):
http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.57.1.pdf
I am not quite sure what all this means, but I think that as things now stand, the original plaintiff could go back to the issuing authority and renew or resubmit a permit application. If denied again, the plaintiff could then file another action to force the authority to issue the permit,and as long as the original decision has not been stayed or overturned, this time the authority could not say they were denying based on the unconstitutional requirement to show need.
Note, in the Original and Amended Complaints Gura sought attorney fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Last edited:
mgkdrgn
Member
Next they will be asking the court to define the meaning of the word "is" .... followed one at a time by every other word in the document.
This case will later be known in Maryland as the "Lawyers Full Employment Act" of 2012. ;-)
This case will later be known in Maryland as the "Lawyers Full Employment Act" of 2012. ;-)
This isn't complex civil litigation where one party is trying to spend the other into the ground. This is a fairly simple constitutional issue: Can capricious acts by the state be constitutional? As long as we are ruled by laws, not men the answer is no. I expect it to be over in a few years. Its not like the Cheveron amazon damages case that has dragged on for 18 years with no end in sight.
Autolycus
Member
Good luck Maryland!
mgkdrgn
Member
Simple to me an you ... yes. Simple to the lawyers ... not a chance. The lawyers will argue that black is white, that left is right, and that the sun rises in the West.
hermannr
Member
AlaxanderA: Not true. They have to get a preliminary injunction from the appeals court first, to stay the ruling, appealed or not. Just because it will probably be appealed, does not mean the original ruling is not in force.
As it stands at the moment, yes, MD is Shall issue, will they? They risk contempt of court if they do not shall issue, but who knows with those egos.
As it stands at the moment, yes, MD is Shall issue, will they? They risk contempt of court if they do not shall issue, but who knows with those egos.
Last I heard, the Court had held the requirement that an applicant demonstrate cause unconstitutional, but had not issued injunctive relief. IOW, he said "that's unconstitutional," but didn't say "stop doing it right now."
bushmaster1313
Member
Not so sure you are correct.
bushmaster1313
Member
The site Johnny linked to is very tasteful and informative:
e.g.:
e.g.:
- Status
